R v Hohua - [2018] NZHC 1509

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-Ā-TARA ROHE

CRI-2017-091-000902

[2018] NZHC 1509

THE QUEEN

v

JOHN SEPA HEPETEMA HOHUA

Counsel:
E M Light for Crown

I M Antunovic for Defendant

Sentence:

22 June 2018

NOTES ON SENTENCE OF COLLINS J

Introduction

[1]Mr Hohua, you appear for a sentencing on the following charges:

(1)two charges of possession of methamphetamine for supply;1 and

(2)one charge of possession of cannabis for supply.2

[2]This morning I will:

(1)set out your offending;

1 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(f) and (2)(a). Maximum penalty life imprisonment.
2 Section 6(1)(f) and (2)(c). Maximum penalty eight years’ imprisonment.

R v HOHUA [2018] NZHC 1509 [22 June 2018]

(2)outline the appropriate starting point for that offending;

(3)explain any adjustments that may be made to that starting point; and

(4)give you your final sentence.

Summary of offending

[3] The charges result from a police operation code-named “Operation Walnut” which commenced in November 2016. That investigation targeted the commercial supply of methamphetamine in the Wellington region.

[4] A surveillance device warrant allowed police to intercept private communications and carry out visual surveillance of two principal targets, Mr Blance and Mr Berkland. They were purchasing kilogram quantities of methamphetamine from Auckland-based suppliers. Mr Blance and Mr Berkland would then on-supply the methamphetamine to a number of associates in their distribution networks. Most of the offending took place at the Coates Street address in Tawa. Associates would then on-supply the methamphetamine further. You were one of the associates.

[5] On 23 March 2017, police intercepted three text messages sent from Mr Berkland to Mr Blance, informing him that you were at Mr Berkland’s address to see Mr Blance. Police then visually recorded you arriving at the Coates Street address in your vehicle, followed by Mr Berkland. Police recorded your conversation with Mr Blance, which indicated that you were purchasing three ounces (84 grams) of methamphetamine, two ounces for $24,000 and one on credit. This forms the basis for the first charge of possession of methamphetamine for supply.

[6] On 16 August 2017, police executed search warrants at your address and on your vehicle. Seven grams of dried cannabis was found in your house in a large snap lock bag, along with 21 “tinnies” (between one and two grams each). The retail price for a tinnie is about $20. The police also found $7,280 in your vehicle. You claimed ownership of the tinnies, but declined to make any further statement. This forms the basis of the charge for possession of cannabis for supply.

[7] On 16 August 2017, you were also personally searched by police after being arrested. You had three bags of methamphetamine, containing a total of 43.4 grams, in your possession. The retail value of this amount of methamphetamine is approximately $22,000. You were also found in possession of electronic scales, a pipe used for smoking methamphetamine and hundreds of empty snap lock bags. This forms the basis of the second…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Hohua

Details

AGLC: R v Hohua [2018] NZHC 1509
Case: [2018] NZHC 1509
Decision Date: 22 June 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Hohua was heard in the High Court of New Zealand Wellington Registry. The defendant, John Sepa Hepetima Hohua, was charged with two counts of possession of methamphetamine for supply and one count of possession of cannabis for supply. The sentencing was conducted by Justice Collins. The legal issues the court was required to decide were the appropriate starting point for the defendant's offending, any adjustments that may be made to that starting point, and the final sentence. The court considered the nature of the defendant's offending, his previous convictions, and the principles of sentencing. The court determined that the defendant's offending warranted a starting point of five and a half years' imprisonment for the methamphetamine charges and an uplift of four months for the cannabis charge, resulting in a total starting point of five years and ten months' imprisonment. The court also made adjustments to the starting point based on personal aggravating and mitigating factors, resulting in a final sentence of four years and six months' imprisonment for the methamphetamine charges and one year imprisonment for the cannabis charge, to be served concurrently. The court also made destruction orders sought by the police and the forfeiture of the Mitsubishi motor vehicle and the $7,280 seized by the police.

Orders